cnb <circularfunc / yahoo.se> writes:
> which is more idiomatic? amazing how similar ruby and python are.
>
> and what does the guy mean with "pure" here:
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4834
> that it is purely OO and consequent?
I'm not him, but luckily I don't have to guess. It's in the article:
"Everything, including primitive data types like strings and integers,
is represented as an object. Even constants and classes are represented
as objects. This makes Ruby a pure object-oriented language."
> Would Python be impure in his
> meaning of pure?
I have only minimal knowledge of Python, but IIRC, python is not as
object-oriented as Ruby is.
> def fib(n, a=0, b=1)
> if n > 0
> then fib(n-1, a+b, a)
> else a
> end
> end
[snip]
What do these have to do with anything?
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/